Classic-Castle.com


The source for all your LEGO Castle needs!

Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Discussion and planning of large-scale Castle Themed displays and events

Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby AK_Brickster » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:05 pm

So, as I'm looking through the CCC standard, as well as the oft-used "Base8" standard, it occurs to me that these standards are rather antiquated. The aesthetic that they are founded on is simply not in the style of most builders today, which isn't really a surprise, considering they were invented a decade ago!

I'd like to start a discussion with regard to bringing these standards up to speed. Perhaps this is the kind of kick-start that the collaborative community needs in order to give people more incentive to participate in future collaborations.

Suggestions will be added to this post as they are submitted for discussion.

CURRENT SUGGESTIONS:

- Updated color scheme (primarily, roads as dark tan and trans dark blue as water)
- Improved aesthetic (updated photos showing more detailed sections)
- More interactive planning process (Google Docs)
Last edited by AK_Brickster on Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image Image
Plastics make it possible! (BrickLink) - - - My Flickr Stream
Courage, Honor, Loyalty! For Garheim!
User avatar
AK_Brickster
Visconte des Paysans de Gong
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Mushing through the Great Driftplains of Garheim

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby AK_Brickster » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:12 pm

My first suggestions would be to A) Update the color palette using some of the newer colors, B) Updating the example photos to better show the level of detail that is possible and C) Taking some of the load off of the coordinator by utilizing a more interactive planning system (Google Docs or the like).

With regard to updating the color palette, my main suggestions are to change the road standard to dark tan. I think it looks a lot better / more natural, and large dark tan is starting to become quite affordable, since many of the current sets are being built on tan plates as bases.

I also would like to see water switch over to trans dark blue for deeper flows, and trans clear for waterfalls and rapids. This is a bit of a hindrance for large bodies of water, since it is much easier to just throw some blue base plates out there, but I think the effect is far superior. Worth talking about, at least.

Another thing that I'd like to see done are some updates to the current examples. If someone sees an example like this:

Image

it doesn't exactly inspire, and most builders will assume that what they are building will be too detailed to fit in with such boring contributions.


Finally, I think that we can make things a lot easier on whoever is coordinating the display by utilizing some sort of interactive display planning system that allows everyone to do their own updates. Instead of "Hey I have a castle with a river I'd like to bring", they can simply place it in the layout themselves, saving the coordinator the trouble of figuring out where to put this vaguely-described MOC.

I've done a really quick example using Google Docs that I think could potentially fill this need. Link to Collaborative Planning Example


I don't see any reason to overhaul the whole standard in terms of how it works, but I think it is definitely time for a modern update.
Image Image
Plastics make it possible! (BrickLink) - - - My Flickr Stream
Courage, Honor, Loyalty! For Garheim!
User avatar
AK_Brickster
Visconte des Paysans de Gong
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Mushing through the Great Driftplains of Garheim

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby Tedward » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:32 pm

Hmmm interesting points. Must ponder...

Quick thought: colour palette is not really specified so perhaps that is a decision for coordinators (ie. this year is a desert-theme, tan walls/sand and dark tan roads).
Image
User avatar
Tedward
Squire
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby AK_Brickster » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:54 pm

In the Base8 standard, there are specific colors spelled out.

Example:

ROADS
- Baseplate: Green (unless otherwise specified)
- Primary color: Tan, 40-90%
- Secondary colors: Light/dark grey/bley, browns & reddish browns


But yes, they could vary as specified by the coordinator. Currently though, if you asked people to build for a collab, they would all show up with tan roads by default, I think.
Image Image
Plastics make it possible! (BrickLink) - - - My Flickr Stream
Courage, Honor, Loyalty! For Garheim!
User avatar
AK_Brickster
Visconte des Paysans de Gong
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Mushing through the Great Driftplains of Garheim

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby ffilz » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:41 pm

I have a few updates for additional interface bits like my 16 brick high cliff and some varying river widths.

As to color palette, while dark tan does indeed look better for roads, I'm in no position to change all my roads, but maybe we can work up some transition sections. I also do cobblestone roads with a mix of grey, dark grey, white, and black 2x2 and 1x1 rounds. The BrickFest 2002 collaborative castle town did cobblestone roads with 1x1 plate in the grey scale from the mosiac set, I have a bunch of those 1x1 plates but have yet to use them.

For cliffs, it may not look good to have old grey butting against new grey, but people have to build with the colors they have. But I think mountain sections of a display are going to need more significant collaboration, so it would be easy to plan some transition sections in if one of the builders is old grey and the other is new grey (certainly I as an old grey builder have enough new grey that I could build some transition sections).

For water, given the nominal standard is water is at base plate height, blue base plates are the best bet there. However, for streams and rivers, folks could certainly add a layer of trans dark blue plates/tiles on top of the baseplate. Transition from one to the other won't be too bad.

Definitely putting more examples out there would be good. I should take some pictures of my modules for some inspiration (though many of mine are pretty plain, the detail comes in having a large display).

Actually, the bigger problem I think that color palettes would be scale of structures (and to some extent detail). A 32x32 cottage will look odd next to a 32x32 castle. But that can be solved by folks with the larger scale more detailed structures being separated from those with smaller scale lower detail structures.

Frank
User avatar
ffilz
Apprentice
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:54 am

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby Bluesecrets » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:19 am

If I may, I have a few things to add.

As much as you can want to try and make everything all so line up and perfect...it isn't possible. Sorry guys but there are some issues: (Note...some of this is all about suck-i-ness)

1) Those awful table clothes and the overlap that exists on them. They SUCK! There..I said it..and I don't feel bad about saying it. They suck, they screw up everything and make getting even the best laid plan of a base to line up perfectly, impossible. Oh and let us not forget those annoying clips to keep the table clothes in place. They suck too.

2) Once at a con I was attempting to build on some kind of foam board under a baseplate. This sucked too. It wasn't flat. It wasn't stable. It was just pure frustrating.

3) The tables themselves suck. They are never the same height...like never.

The above suck-i-ness aside, I have some other things to add.

4) Not everyone builds in the same style. Some of us like old school looks. Some of us don't.

5) Variety is the spice of life and while having a standard is nice, some of us like to have raised bases or fancy bases, or round bases, or being wild and crazy...no bases. (Yes, some of us want to suspend our castle from the ceiling!)

6) Colors? Hey...don't restrict me! If I want purple roads..well then consider that the happy little girl who lives in my village had fun with some paint. Reality, roads aren't always the same kind of road from start to finish.

SO...I guess...if you can find a way to avoid all the ways these things SUCK! And let me have my happy pink and purple roads...with my raised base that may have part of it suspended from the ceiling...all while it is desert AND you let me be both old school and new school...then okay, we have a starting place...but until then...how about we fix all those areas of SUCK first?
~ Brickshelf~Flickr~

Queen of Tan

Any building, is good building. Build for the fun of it!
User avatar
Bluesecrets
High Priestess of the Vermillion Order
High Priestess of the Vermillion Order
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: On the girls side of the room.

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby ffilz » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:57 pm

Bluesecrets wrote:If I may, I have a few things to add.

As much as you can want to try and make everything all so line up and perfect...it isn't possible. Sorry guys but there are some issues: (Note...some of this is all about suck-i-ness)

1) Those awful table clothes and the overlap that exists on them. They SUCK! There..I said it..and I don't feel bad about saying it. They suck, they screw up everything and make getting even the best laid plan of a base to line up perfectly, impossible. Oh and let us not forget those annoying clips to keep the table clothes in place. They suck too.

2) Once at a con I was attempting to build on some kind of foam board under a baseplate. This sucked too. It wasn't flat. It wasn't stable. It was just pure frustrating.

3) The tables themselves suck. They are never the same height...like never.

The above suck-i-ness aside, I have some other things to add.


Yes, those are annoying issues. But we get by them. At Bricks Cascade, I cheated and swapped out a couple of my tables. I also have used cardboard bits to shim the table legs so the height is pretty close. I've also knocked out a clip or two (if you have 50 pounds of MOC sitting on the table cloth, it doesn't need a clip...).

A few gaps show up between my modules, but even then, a lot of that can be fixed with some plates or bricks holding modules together. And sometimes I need to add an extra plate or two because one module has wound up that much higher than the other.

4) Not everyone builds in the same style. Some of us like old school looks. Some of us don't.


As I suggested, if style differences cause too much distraction, space things out so the distraction isn't there. For the most part, if you are close enough that style differences are distracting, your field of view probably only includes about 5'x5' worth of table or so.

5) Variety is the spice of life and while having a standard is nice, some of us like to have raised bases or fancy bases, or round bases, or being wild and crazy...no bases. (Yes, some of us want to suspend our castle from the ceiling!)


Something on a non-rectangular base is going to be harder to mesh in with stuff on a rectangular base unless we can sit it on a bunch of green baseplates or something. That European show with the cool display where there was a wandering and branching path did not fill all space. Meshing such a display with my Base8 display is going to look weird... To mesh such displays, I think someone would have to build a section 5' deep (table depth) that is Base8 on one side (butting against my stuff) and has a path leading out of it on the other side, with a rough edge that conforms to the style of the wandering path stuff. Just having one of their wandering paths match up with my path and otherwise having a straight line edge of my stuff is going to look a bit weird.

6) Colors? Hey...don't restrict me! If I want purple roads..well then consider that the happy little girl who lives in my village had fun with some paint. Reality, roads aren't always the same kind of road from start to finish.


Like you say, roads can change type. There could be a fuzzy edge, or it can just be an abrupt change (I change from tan to cobble abruptly and it really comes out just fine). So go for it with your purple road! Maybe I'll try and put my pink castle near your purple road, and MAYBE I'll build some purple road leading to my pink castle...

SO...I guess...if you can find a way to avoid all the ways these things SUCK! And let me have my happy pink and purple roads...with my raised base that may have part of it suspended from the ceiling...all while it is desert AND you let me be both old school and new school...then okay, we have a starting place...but until then...how about we fix all those areas of SUCK first?


I think the key really is collaboration. Let's work together to bring all our stuff together into a display. Let's make room for people to bring anything they want, or to work together before they start building, whatever suits a particular person.

Frank
User avatar
ffilz
Apprentice
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:54 am

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby AK_Brickster » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:21 pm

You can certainly do purple roads if you want, but the idea of a 'collaboration' is to try to, you know, collaborate ;)

I think when participating in the collaboration, some individual style elements necessarily need to go by the wayside. You might not want your road to end up 8 studs away from the edge of your plate, but to make it fit, that's a sacrifice you have to make! :)

As for uneven tables, perhaps a greater effort should be made during initial setup to make sure that the collab section is nice and level. Collaborator could bring shims of varying thickness to even things up a bit prior to tablecloths, and clips could be excluded for that section. Heck, tablecloths could be excluded if the whole table is going to be covered by MOCs anyway! Just use one as a skirt along the front and presto, nobody knows the difference.

Anyway, very few of these issues really have much to do with updating the CCC standard. They are more general collaboration notes that are going to be issues no matter what the building standard may be.

Frank, your section is so massive that It would be crazy to expect you to switch all of your roads out. If we went with a switch to dark tan, maybe you could just do a transition section near the edge of your display to match things up. Or someone could transition to you. Should be an easy fix.


You make some good points regarding scale of structures. Should there be an agreed-to general footprint for civilian buildings? Right now, it seems like most people just say, "Yeah, I'm building something that we can stick in the collab" but they are building it without any real consideration for the collaborative section, and are just cramming it in to 'contribute'. Should a greater emphasis be made on building with the collaboration first and foremost in mind?
Image Image
Plastics make it possible! (BrickLink) - - - My Flickr Stream
Courage, Honor, Loyalty! For Garheim!
User avatar
AK_Brickster
Visconte des Paysans de Gong
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Mushing through the Great Driftplains of Garheim

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby ffilz » Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:52 am

A lot of the style issues (including color palette) can be solved by grouping like minded folks together.

On issues of scale, I'd be happy for my castles which tend to be 1-2 grey baseplates in size and maybe 2' tall to be in a collaborative display with someone's 5'x5' castle. We just need to make space between the two sections so my castles look more like outposts and the 5'x5' castle is the big castle. With enough collaboration, we could also put some distance between my castles. The same goes for towns. My town buildings range from 16x16 to 32x32 or so (which actually fits fine with the majority of the town buildings I see pictures of). If someone's got some larger ones, maybe we try and group those into a larger city. Or if it's not a city building, or there's just a couple, we just put enough space between them and the smaller scale buildings.

I want to encourage more participation in collaborative display, from drop in folks (for whom we find a place in the display for their MOC) to several folks collaborating on a large section of the display.

Though one thing that may actually come out of that, the larger scale buildings might actually NOT be appropriate for a collaborative display. A 5'x5' castle makes it hard to present the castle in context with surrounding terrain. A 48x96 tavern is large enough again that creating context around it is more challenging, not not so bad.

One of the things that would make the collaborative display better though is more organic road/path/stream connections between sections. The collaborative displays at BrickCon 2011 (not counting the desert collaboration) and 2012 really looked like a bunch of independent displays placed next to each other (though we had SOME interaction between my section and the others in 2013, but not really much).

One other issue is castle factions... I'm not sure what the best solution here is because I don't want to force factions on the community. I've certainly got my ideas about each faction, and they are probably different from yours. And there are going to be multiple castles from some of the more popular factions.

Another way to increase collaboration is rather than trying to have one huge display that everyone contributes to is to encourage several collaborations each with a few participants (with some "open" to contributions of a MOC or two from additional folks - for example, if 5 folks bring town buildings, we could distribute them among the different collaborations). if we could get enough groups going, we could have a collaborative display prize for the group judged to have the most collaborative spirit in their display. Then if we have 3 folks that all want to do a lion knights castle, well, if they are in three separate displays, then that works.

On the other hand, what won't work well is what happened at Bricks Cascade where someone wanted to put their 32x32 MOC connected to my display. The different scopes of the two contributors resulted in it looking like his MOC was one of mine and trying to explain to folks was not going to be easy. After a while, I slid his MOC away from my display to separate it. It's one thing for me to anchor part of the display (like I did at BrickCon 2006) where everyone else has much smaller contributions (except for Tom at the other end...), it's another to have one or two huge contributions and a few small ones tucked in. The key is to get back to what happened in 2006 where we did have enough participants that those who brought just a few bits were part of the town (or in the middle of the sea), which the big contributors had anchor sections (whether at the end or in the middle).

Frank
User avatar
ffilz
Apprentice
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:54 am

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby SEdmison » Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:51 am

AK_Brickster wrote:CURRENT SUGGESTIONS:

- Updated color scheme (primarily, roads as dark tan and trans dark blue as water)
- Improved aesthetic (updated photos showing more detailed sections)
- More interactive planning process (Google Docs)


I agree with all of these.

AK_Brickster wrote:In the Base8 standard, there are specific colors spelled out.

Example:

ROADS
- Baseplate: Green (unless otherwise specified)
- Primary color: Tan, 40-90%
- Secondary colors: Light/dark grey/bley, browns & reddish browns

But yes, they could vary as specified by the coordinator. Currently though, if you asked people to build for a collab, they would all show up with tan roads by default, I think.


Maybe we need a palette for, say, forest/medieval Europe and a separate palette for desert terrain. Still, the idea of updating the color scheme in light of the parts Lego now produce seems worth doing.

Bluesecrets wrote:If I may, I have a few things to add.

As much as you can want to try and make everything all so line up and perfect...it isn't possible. Sorry guys but there are some issues: (Note...some of this is all about suck-i-ness)

1) Those awful table clothes and the overlap that exists on them. They SUCK! There..I said it..and I don't feel bad about saying it. They suck, they screw up everything and make getting even the best laid plan of a base to line up perfectly, impossible. Oh and let us not forget those annoying clips to keep the table clothes in place. They suck too.

2) Once at a con I was attempting to build on some kind of foam board under a baseplate. This sucked too. It wasn't flat. It wasn't stable. It was just pure frustrating.

3) The tables themselves suck. They are never the same height...like never.


I tend to agree with those observations, but I don't think they argue in favor of or against updating the current standards. These factors will plague us regardless of what particular things we've built and what standards we used to build them.

Bluesecrets wrote:4) Not everyone builds in the same style. Some of us like old school looks. Some of us don't.

5) Variety is the spice of life and while having a standard is nice, some of us like to have raised bases or fancy bases, or round bases, or being wild and crazy...no bases. (Yes, some of us want to suspend our castle from the ceiling!)

6) Colors? Hey...don't restrict me! If I want purple roads..well then consider that the happy little girl who lives in my village had fun with some paint. Reality, roads aren't always the same kind of road from start to finish.


You are always free to build whatever you want, but the point of this discussion was to have some standard that people who choose to participate can choose to use so that their creations look good when attached to each other. I think you'd have to admit that if your road is purple and then on the next baseplate connected to it my road is tan, that's going to interrupt the continuity a bit, right?

Bluesecrets wrote:SO...I guess...if you can find a way to avoid all the ways these things SUCK! And let me have my happy pink and purple roads...with my raised base that may have part of it suspended from the ceiling...all while it is desert AND you let me be both old school and new school...then okay, we have a starting place...but until then...how about we fix all those areas of SUCK first?


So are you saying that until we get the Seattle Center to replace all of their tables with new ones that are the same height to the millimeter we shouldn't even discuss updating decade-old building standards? I disagree....
All things in moderation, particularly moderators.

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sedmison/
User avatar
SEdmison
Laborer
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:16 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby Bluesecrets » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:05 am

No. I'm just trying to give a different perspective. There are challenges with any standard. Those are challenges that exist even without a standard.
~ Brickshelf~Flickr~

Queen of Tan

Any building, is good building. Build for the fun of it!
User avatar
Bluesecrets
High Priestess of the Vermillion Order
High Priestess of the Vermillion Order
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: On the girls side of the room.

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby SEdmison » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:10 am

ffilz wrote:On the other hand, what won't work well is what happened at Bricks Cascade where someone wanted to put their 32x32 MOC connected to my display. The different scopes of the two contributors resulted in it looking like his MOC was one of mine and trying to explain to folks was not going to be easy. After a while, I slid his MOC away from my display to separate it. It's one thing for me to anchor part of the display (like I did at BrickCon 2006) where everyone else has much smaller contributions (except for Tom at the other end...), it's another to have one or two huge contributions and a few small ones tucked in. The key is to get back to what happened in 2006 where we did have enough participants that those who brought just a few bits were part of the town (or in the middle of the sea), which the big contributors had anchor sections (whether at the end or in the middle).


That's a point that I admit to not having considered at the time, but I'll be more aware of it this time around. Part of what is tricky is that everyone shows up at different times, and with different scales of displays, so as a theme coordinator it can be hard to know exactly where to put everyone. In your case, you did tell me ahead of time about what table space you would need, but just as a general observation, let's say that I know ahead of time that I have two builders who have each built base8 or CCC sections and want to anchor a collaborative section. In that case, I can put them together. On the other hand, let's say that we put out the call for collaborative build sections, and one guy shows up with a ton of stuff, and then 2 or 3 or 4 other people each show up with 1 32x32 baseplate each. Maybe part of the expectation in that case just needs to be that we will make on-the-fly adjustments, and that we might separate out otherwise compatible sections into smaller displays in order to accommodate difference in scale of contribution, scale of buildings, color palette, style (old-school Castle versus LotR versus whatever). So if we start out with the idea of connecting some sections together, get them in place, and find that someone's not happy, then we adjust.

(Of course, much of this can be prevented with enough planning and communication up front, but there will always be the newcomer, lurker, or person who just doesn't feel comfortable contacting the coordinator ahead of time.)

Bluesecrets wrote:No. I'm just trying to give a different perspective. There are challenges with any standard. Those are challenges that exist even without a standard.


I feel pretty confident speaking for the group when I say that no one is trying to reduce your creative freedom or force you to build in a way that you don't want to build. So the perspective of maintaining people's creative freedom is certainly valid, but I don't think that it's strictly relevant to the discussion of a building standard (which is, of course, optional). The standard should be about having sections that blend together seamlessly.

As for the other kinds of challenges, I would certainly be interested in hearing any of the feedback that folks have on how to address those, but again, I don't think that issues like uneven tables and tablecloths are strictly relevant to the topic of a building standard (and thus might best be addressed in a separate thread).
All things in moderation, particularly moderators.

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sedmison/
User avatar
SEdmison
Laborer
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:16 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby Lil_Curt » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:08 am

Ok so just throwing this out there, but it seems that the tables are a problem at some of the events, being uneven,not the same height, etc. Well there is a sure fire way to eleminate that problem! Its something that is done in scale railroading ( another hobby of mine) . Anyway I model in n-scale and there is a modular standard called n-trac an in it it sets rules for dimension of the modual, where to place the mainline, how high to build the legs on said modual etc.

So why cant the same be done here. We spend enough on our mocs, whats a few more dollars to build a display table/platform to the same height an bring it with you. Now before you all flame me. Yes I know you may not live in the state as the convention that is being held. But you know what, a lot of nscalers dont live in the same state all the time either, an they make arrangements to get there moduals there. An if it is a colaborative build, why not all chip in a few bucks an have a designated person or club build/store the designated display table.

Just a thought,

Curt
So Many Hobbies So Little Time....
Come Visit me on Facebook @ Atavistic Creations
User avatar
Lil_Curt
Journeyman
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:21 pm
Location: Thornton, CO

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby SEdmison » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:31 am

Can we move the table-leveling and similar kinds of concerns to another thread? This thread is really about updating the Classic-Castle.com City standard.
All things in moderation, particularly moderators.

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sedmison/
User avatar
SEdmison
Laborer
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:16 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Updating the CCC Standard - Discussion

Postby Bluesecrets » Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:43 pm

Can we move the table-leveling and similar kinds of concerns to another thread? This thread is really about updating the Classic-Castle.com City standard.


I think they are relevant. I have tried to build for the collaborative area at brickcon almost every year I have been there. I always help out and lend a hand. But if you are trying to connect two sections together and they just won't because of the above reasons, it is limiting. There were times when we were forced to use plates on top of slopes to get an angled connection. Then there is the fact that you have to hope someone has the bricks and plates to do it..then try and remember who each and every part belongs to for tear down?

It IS a problem that needs to be discussed. There needs to be part of the plan and standard that these things are accommodated. Even if that means part of the standard is a statement of "you need to bring extra bricks, plates, and slopes in the colors at the edge of your build for the ability to seamlessly attach to the build beside you."

You can talk about colors and construction all you want, but if you don't come up with some kind of plan about dealing with the issues that really do exist, then the display will still have them and not be seamless or fluid.
~ Brickshelf~Flickr~

Queen of Tan

Any building, is good building. Build for the fun of it!
User avatar
Bluesecrets
High Priestess of the Vermillion Order
High Priestess of the Vermillion Order
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: On the girls side of the room.

Next

Return to Castle Displays & Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron